The second club, the social-conservatives, openly expressed the nostalgia of its members for the former Soviet Union. In their
manifesto they wrote: “We all grew up in the USSR and consider the dissolution of
that government a tragedy for all its peoples. We should not consider the current
frontiers of our state to be eternal. We are ready to pursue any unification of states
on the former territory of the Union, and even beyond its frontiers. However, from
this it follows that our readiness to reach out to peoples who want to unite with
Russia, is matched by a readiness to risk a relatively peaceful life or the present
level of wealth. Of course, the more prosperous Russia becomes, the sooner neighbors
will reach out to her.”[52] The fact that in the manifesto the present frontiers between Russia and her neighbors
are not considered to be eternal, written in a program of the dominant group within
Russia’s governing party, is in itself a cause for concern. Even more so, when it
goes on to propose that a (re-)unification with the neighboring peoples on the former
territory of the Soviet Union and “even beyond its frontiers” would require of the
Russian citizens “the readiness to risk a relatively peaceful life.” It echoed openly
the dangerous revisionism of the Liberal-Democratic Party and the Communist Party.
Russia’s Rebirth
Imperial ambition and ultranationalist fervor were even more prominent in the third
club, the State Patriotic Club (Gosudarstvenno-patrioticheskiy Klub), which began its political declaration with the quote: “The state is not located
‘out there,’ outside of us, it lives in us, in the form of ourselves.”[53] Having thus defined the state as a quasi-biological ingredient of every single
Russian citizen, as essential for the individual’s survival as his liver, stomach,
and lungs, it might appear impossible to construct any opposition of interests between
the state and the individual, as is the case in Western liberal political philosophies.
This is also considered unnecessary, because patriotism is the glue that binds the
citizen and the government together. “One of the most important tasks of the politics
of the majority party,” one could read, “must be the permanent strengthening of the
mutual link between the state patriotism (gosudarstvennicheskiy patriotizm) of our people and the government’s policy for the people, for its interests and
national dignity.”[54] The club declared itself in favor of a “military-patriotic education” and wanted
to promote “the propaganda of historical examples of military courage and heroism
by the people in defense of the Fatherland.” It equally wanted “to strengthen the
prestige of the military service” and was in favor of the adaptation of history books
in schools, “with the purpose of providing a fuller and more precise account of events
in the history of the Fatherland,” adding that “one of the most important objectives
is to work with the young generation.”
The promotion of martial virtues and patriotism, it continued, should lead to a “rebirth
of Russian state power” (vozrozhdenie rossiyskoy derzhavy). The members of the State Patriotic Club, like the social conservatives, do not
hide their neoimperialist ambitions. The declaration spoke about “the historical unity
of the peoples of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and other brother republics”
and stressed the fact that “our peoples are bound by many millions of ties: family
and kinship ties, friendship bonds, business contacts, creative relationships. Not
to mention a shared language, culture, shared holidays and symbols. For precisely
these reasons any attempts to draw frontiers not only on the map, but also in society,
to split not just property, but a historical heritage, is considered by all of us
a tragedy and a great injustice.” The declaration continued: “Today it is Russia in
particular that is the most committed guarantor of real sovereignty and democracy
for the countries of the CIS, the real defender against external interference and
economic crises.”[55] It remains to be seen, however, if all CIS members would agree with the statement
that Russia is the guarantor of their “real sovereignty” and “democracy.”
